Sometimes I wonder if present-day society is missing an 11th Commandment: "Woman, thou shalt be judged!" Last week, there were three high-profile examples. First, Madonna, who appeared on stage in tiny shorts, displaying her allegedly withered and hideous (though actually toned and fit) buttocks. Next Victoria Beckham, widely ridiculed for describing herself as the "average woman". Finally Rihanna, who was accused of bleaching her skin. So here was a mixed bag of world-famous womanhood: past-it pop mutton, deluded skeletal hag, and self-hating black woman? "J'accuse!" went the cry, when in fact all three of these women are probably owed an apology.

First, Madonna, and the outfit she was wearing on stage – the operative words being "on stage". Madonna is a performer – when she performs, she wears things called (wait for it) stage costumes. Believe an old NME hack when I reveal this: when international pop stars plan world tours, they rarely muse: "How can I tone this down, and ensure nobody can see me from the back of the arena?" People attending Madonna's shows would probably be disappointed if she appeared wearing age-appropriate Hobbs slacks, and a tasteful cashmere V-neck. I'm saying all this because the way Madonna was criticised, you'd think that she'd worn the offending garment – with her fishnet-clad derriere hanging out – to walk the dog, or attend a school parent's evening. She hadn't. Unfortunately.

As for Victoria Beckham, she never actually described herself as "average" – her main point was that it felt wrong to use "six-foot-whatever 17-year-old models" to promote her expensive clothing line when she could represent her brand better herself. At no point does Beckham claim that her extreme wealth or thinness are average. Her assertion ("I represent the general public here") might have been badly articulated, but was clearly a self-deprecating reference to being a thirtysomething wife and mother, and not the "six foot-whatever 17-year-old". Notions of the "general public" also need to be put into context – she was giving the interview to Harper's Bazaar, not Take a Break. All things considered, Beckham was attempting – in an admittedly muddled way – to make a rather positive statement. Result: she was abused and ridiculed.

Finally Rihanna. This was a different scenario to those creepy promotional campaigns where black stars appear on billboards and in magazine spreads looking whiter than I am. The judgment on Rihanna was based on her just walking around, living her life, looking "lighter". Do people not realise that, just as white skin tans, black skins also grow darker when exposed to the sun, and vice versa?

With this in mind, attacking Rihanna for looking lighter is as illogical as accusing a slightly paler than usual Katy Perry of bleaching her skin. The condemnation of Rihanna verges on the quasi-racist, or at least the very dumb. Could it be that when some people say "women of colour", they actually mean "better make that just one colour", because anything else confuses the unimaginative white brain?

Some might say that there are plenty of other women out there who deserve our attention and sympathy more than this gilded trio. However, it might be telling to have three such high-profile women judged in three wholly different ways – from overt ageism (Madonna), to quasi-racism (Rihanna), to, for Posh, the age-old tactic of: "Take comments out of context and attack!"

All of this, churning and gurgling in the giant cement mixer that is casual misogyny, with all three examples occurring in just one week. Indeed, where "woman, thou shalt be judged!" is concerned, maybe it wasn't entirely accurate for me to say that we are missing the 11th commandment. Maybe for some people, this commandment would be the first.

Don't blame Obama over this tragedy

One can't begin to imagine the devastation suffered by the family and friends of the young British tourists James Cooper and James Kouzaris, who were shot dead in Florida last April by 17-year-old Shawn Tyson after they wandered into a crime-ridden housing project. Friends of the victims have complained that Kouzaris's father wrote to President Obama, but did not receive a reply because – they believed there was no "political value" for Obama in doing so.

This seems to be a reference to the shooting, also in Florida, of black teenager Trayvon Martin, by a white member of a neighbourhood watch, where Obama intervened – declaring that, if he'd had a son, Martin would have looked like him.

With all due respect, it seems illogical to attack President Obama. How could anybody even be sure that Obama saw the letters, among the countless others his office must process? If he did see them, it would be disappointing if there wasn't the courtesy of a reply. However, there would still have been no reason for the president to become directly involved in the case.

Again with respect, would anyone have written to our prime minister, or expected his personal involvement, had the crime happened back in Britain?

Obama's intervention into Martin's case was all too understandable given the context of race. The shooting of the British men, while grotesque, had no such racial motivation.

Nor was there a miscarriage of justice – Tyson was found guilty of first-degree murder, which, under US law, means imprisonment for the rest of his life. The crime was horrific, but justice was done. With this in mind, it seems somewhat unfair to criticise Obama, who can't be expected to monitor every case which makes its way through the US courts.

Pastygate's past its sell-by date

Was "pastygate" a cunning ruse to promote the product, because it made some of us feel peckish? Aside from that, it was bemusing, bordering on annoying. There were all those politicos munching on sweaty pastry (probably vomiting into their aides' briefcases straight afterwards). Next, Tory David Davis said that this "privileged" government are thought to live in a "different world". Which sounds accurate, but what's puff pastry got to do with it?

I find bizarre the insinuation that it's only the working classes, knuckle-dragging proles, who buy "hot fast food". These delicacies are clearly consumed by a wide range of types, not least office workers who need to eat quickly in their lunch hours. Or (just clutching wildly for an example) journalists with hangovers, who know from experience that only the filthiest of carbs can soak up the alcohol. Until now, the group who've always seemed most obsessed by pasties are touring comedians, who never stop talking about them.

These days, it's arguable that working-class people are far too aspirational to over-consume pasties – after all that free state education, they may even know their way around a Jamie Oliver recipe or two. As for the unemployed, if they're that "feckless", then they probably can't be bothered to make the journey to the high street or the station, where such items are sold. To my knowledge, there are no motorcycle couriers delivering hot pasties straight to your door.

Joking apart, the impact of the tax on hot fast food looks complex and wide-ranging – it's certainly not just about the diet of the working classes.

The fact that politicians across the spectrum automatically presumed it was just shows how out of touch they really are.